Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kapral v. Geico Indemnity Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

January 10, 2017

CORY KAPRAL, Plaintiff,
v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER

          AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on non-party Theodore C. Eastmoore's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 202) and Defendant's Opposition thereto (Doc. 204).[1]

         The instant action is a third-party bad faith action brought by Plaintiff Cory Kapral against Defendant Geico Indemnity Company, arising out of an automobile accident involving Plaintiff and Pamela Beitlich. (Doc. 1). Following the accident, Paul and Pamela Beitlich retained Theodore C. Eastmoore, Esq., who filed the underlying lawsuit.

         On December 21, 2016, the instant action was set for trial before the Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge, commencing on January 23, 2017. (Doc. 201, p. 3). Thereafter, defense counsel issued a trial subpoena to Mr. Eastmoore, which was served on December 29, 2016, compelling his attendance at the trial on January 23, 2017. (Doc. 202, p. 4). On January 5, 2017, Mr. Eastmoore filed the instant Motion for Protective Order requesting that he be released from the trial subpoena because he is presently set to serve as lead counsel in a two- week medical malpractice trial beginning on January 23, 2017. (Doc. 202, p. 1).

         The Court may enter a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1). That rule provides, in relevant part:

A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending … The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense …

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Courts have stated that under Rule 26(c)(1), a protective order may be issued if the movant shows “good cause.” McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989).

         Here, as Defendant concedes, the undersigned finds that serving as lead counsel in a separate litigation constitutes good cause to release Mr. Eastmoore from the trial subpoena. (Doc. 204, p. 4). As this matter is set for trial commencing on January 23, 2017, the same date that Mr. Eastmoore's two week trial begins, the undersigned sees no need to further delay entry of the protective order.

         Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED that Theodore C. Eastmoore's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 202) is GRANTED.

         DONE AND ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The undersigned ordered Defendant to provide an expedited response. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.